[DNSOP] Homenet implementation plans by vendors? Re: .arpa

Dan York <york@isoc.org> Thu, 23 March 2017 20:11 UTC

Return-Path: <york@isoc.org>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09837129BF5 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Mar 2017 13:11:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.697
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.697 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-2.796, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=isoc.onmicrosoft.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8fm-O7NX079M for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Mar 2017 13:11:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from NAM01-SN1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-sn1nam01on0051.outbound.protection.outlook.com [104.47.32.51]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ADDF812967D for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 Mar 2017 13:11:19 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=isoc.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector1-isoc-org; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=sXNL4PXb+KhA4zYxG/m2mRqNaMAvaxVjVLDpc5OTyCQ=; b=d3j09fmzhP27OS8A/oAUvZCMXmR8jbA4YCmpCrl277QhzDCnVNs0UrdsKhvitCFh+I2O6pm3r6NcZMXflxhnwiC9mqP5GhXupXWpm0LTL09gVBY92QxLWC40PG2mcjSdAYNs5B0YFsJrQB/YJOx0vHzh226uy6cBgGXACl2N7L8=
Received: from CY1PR0601MB1657.namprd06.prod.outlook.com (10.163.232.19) by CY1PR0601MB1659.namprd06.prod.outlook.com (10.163.232.21) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.991.14; Thu, 23 Mar 2017 20:11:18 +0000
Received: from CY1PR0601MB1657.namprd06.prod.outlook.com ([10.163.232.19]) by CY1PR0601MB1657.namprd06.prod.outlook.com ([10.163.232.19]) with mapi id 15.01.0977.021; Thu, 23 Mar 2017 20:11:17 +0000
From: Dan York <york@isoc.org>
To: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>
CC: Ray Bellis <ray@bellis.me.uk>, dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Homenet implementation plans by vendors? Re: [DNSOP] .arpa
Thread-Index: AQHSotq32ZsMWZyVakiSJJ5phoCJqKGgvIgAgAACrwCAABE+gIAAISaAgAAAyoCAAAUdgIAAEuwAgAAOnwCAAA26AIAAryKAgACH8ACAAEJ1gIAADsWAgAACkQCAAAg9gIAAASyAgAABqICAACDWAA==
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2017 20:11:17 +0000
Message-ID: <AB3C9BCC-AFF5-43E9-8312-ADFE28B75D0B@isoc.org>
References: <20170323042741.79108.qmail@ary.lan> <2C6B4EB6-D0F0-44A8-95E4-68DF32244639@fugue.com> <20170323163205.GD19105@mx4.yitter.info> <500af1ed-5425-4452-ad8e-c2d511ee738d@bellis.me.uk> <850A8729-8762-4375-90EF-50CDF4AC232E@gmail.com> <alpine.LRH.2.20.999.1703231351490.2262@bofh.nohats.ca> <a6e98737-b426-a67b-efe7-3603c531afcb@bellis.me.uk> <alpine.LRH.2.20.999.1703231412130.2262@bofh.nohats.ca>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LRH.2.20.999.1703231412130.2262@bofh.nohats.ca>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: nohats.ca; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;nohats.ca; dmarc=none action=none header.from=isoc.org;
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-originating-ip: [74.75.87.222]
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; CY1PR0601MB1659; 7:C6JVY94MOSI7IIkprLCEWt/nbV8Sgg2xO6DooLEUaG6p/7agmaESyq697Ut5VTnE81/nlJHmt9Osu82HeSm7gy3lfEYS+RiRmrIa21vxLr3bMSh/oTYemtBp8mR3hQmnb1pUR17PDZOdHhmGV26CfYco6HhUmUwaW6Q0sokH/GAKEFsPg8Bl11t+u/vikqxJcLFzg/ACLn+hgVcuD/jTW747nQLkJqHQ90PqEAqXwHXo6BKqrQ0oWEjcEh9RsilOdk1EdDmMAVAucKNDuxu2d7z6tioojl7MZg6ZOVoV6/HOoSvWccQ63QOsxuxtWD7E8JnB750uiX0R4ekWJUQdzw==
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: fcd6ca7e-fc61-4362-5174-08d47228c40f
x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(22001)(2017030254075); SRVR:CY1PR0601MB1659;
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <CY1PR0601MB16599BB4DEF1DB540A12076CB73F0@CY1PR0601MB1659.namprd06.prod.outlook.com>
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:(31418570063057);
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(6040375)(601004)(2401047)(8121501046)(5005006)(10201501046)(3002001)(6041248)(20161123558025)(20161123555025)(20161123564025)(20161123560025)(20161123562025)(6072148); SRVR:CY1PR0601MB1659; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:CY1PR0601MB1659;
x-forefront-prvs: 0255DF69B9
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(6009001)(39450400003)(24454002)(377454003)(25786009)(6916009)(66066001)(2950100002)(8936002)(53546009)(93886004)(305945005)(76176999)(54356999)(81166006)(8676002)(102836003)(6116002)(7736002)(50986999)(122556002)(3846002)(1720100001)(2900100001)(110136004)(82746002)(189998001)(53936002)(6436002)(3280700002)(3660700001)(6506006)(6486002)(38730400002)(77096006)(2906002)(53376002)(5660300001)(99286003)(86362001)(6512007)(6306002)(33656002)(54906002)(966004)(4326008)(36756003)(83716003)(18886065003); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:CY1PR0601MB1659; H:CY1PR0601MB1657.namprd06.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; MLV:sfv; LANG:en;
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <99E6991F89976746829BF9BED0456463@namprd06.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: isoc.org
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 23 Mar 2017 20:11:17.6095 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 89f84dfb-7285-4810-bc4d-8b9b5794554f
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: CY1PR0601MB1659
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/XhXdIA5iC2szPFPOz-sYovl8uaU>
Subject: [DNSOP] Homenet implementation plans by vendors? Re: .arpa
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dnsop/>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsop@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2017 20:11:22 -0000

Ted or Ray or others more involved with Homenet, (I have not been)

I've not fully read all of the 80+ messages in this thread over the past couple of days, but Paul's comment below (as well as Ralph Droms' comment the other day about code) made me wonder:

- Do we have any sense of whether people in the industry are going to implement these Homenet protocols in actual devices and operations? 

Have any large vendors committed to deploying the protocols? Software vendors? Hardware vendors?

Or to put it another way - do we have businesses out there asking for these kind of solutions?  Or who are we building it for?

I ask in part because if the IETF did decide to go down the route of interacting with ICANN to make special exceptions in the root zone, these are exactly the kind of questions I could see people at ICANN asking.  It would also speak to the timeframe question. If there are people clamoring for this functionality, that might raise its priority.

Again, I've not been involved with the Homenet WG. I have a very basic understanding of the problem the WG is seeking to solve. But I'm not clear how large of a problem this is seen as within the larger industry.

Thanks to anyone who can shed light on this,
Dan


> On Mar 23, 2017, at 2:13 PM, Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca> wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 23 Mar 2017, Ray Bellis wrote:
> 
>> On 23/03/2017 11:03, Paul Wouters wrote:
>> 
>>> The phrase "more important" is pretty meaningless. And as was indicated,
>>> it is all based on the levels of DNSSEC deployment on stubs, which could
>>> change dramatically if one phone vender would suddently enable
>>> validation or default to DNS-over-TLS to 8.8.8.8.
>> 
>> To be fair, if they did _only_ the latter then the .homenet names would
>> never resolve anyway...
> 
> Correct, and DNS software has to be updated to handle this, just like it
> needs updating to handle .local and .onion. If the Powers That Be can
> agree on the string, we can start updating DNS software now so we are
> ready when 5G hits :P
> 
> Paul
> 
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> DNSOP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

--
Dan York
Senior Manager, Content & Web Strategy, Internet Society
york@isoc.org   +1-603-439-0024 
Jabber: york@jabber.isoc.org  Skype: danyork   http://twitter.com/danyork

http://www.internetsociety.org/